This
application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. It
is the claimed of the applicant that the applicant is working in the grade of PA (Postal
Assistant) to HO at Chikmagalur
continuously since 12.5.2003 to
7.6.2010. The Superintendent of Post
Office, Chikmagalur Division who is Respondent-1
and who is an officer with due authority, issued his transfer order dated
5.4.2010 and accordingly the applicant took charge as PA to SO at Aldur. He made a representation dated 5.7.2010 to
be brought back to Chikmagalur which was considered favourably by Respondent-1
who issued an office memo dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure A4) by virtue of which the
applicant joined back at Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 itself.

3. The
respondents department has however, painted a different scenario. According to
this, on 15.1.2010 the respondent-1 had issued office memo for rotational
transfers for the year 2010-2011 (Annexure R1) in which it was indicated that
the applicant was due to rotational transfer.
Immediately thereafter, i.e., on 4.2.2010 the applicant gave representation
for retaining him for one more year at Chikmagalur and this was rejected by
Respondent-4 who is the Post Master General, STA, S.K.Region, an authority
superior to the respondent-1 and also the authority to lay down policy
guidelines. Keeping in view this
rejection, the rotational transfer orders issued by Respondent-1 under his
office memo dated 5.4.2010 included the name of applicant who was posted as
Postal Assistant, Aldur SO. Thereafter, the applicant again gave representations
dated 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010 requesting cancellation of his transfer orders
and the two representations were once again
rejected by Respondent-4 vide his letter dated 5.5.2010, produced at
Annexure R2. In view of this the
applicant joins as Postal Assistant at Aldur on 8.6.2010, then once again gives
a request representation to Respondent-1 on 5.7.2010, the Respondent-1
considers it and orders his transfer back to Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 and thus
the applicant joins back as Postal Assistant, Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010. When Respondent-4 while reviewing rotational
transfers in his Division observes this
irregularity caused by retransfer of the applicant to Chikmagalur, he issues
orders to Respondent-1 for cancellation of
the same on 30.8.2010 at Annexure R3.
Accordingly, the first respondent issues his official letter dated
3.9.2010 asking the applicant to rejoin at Aldur whereupon the applicant
remained absent on medical grounds for 12 days during which period he also
approaches this Tribunal on 17.9.2010 and obtains a stay order against his
transfer to Aldur.

4. The
learned Counsel for applicant has requested for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2010 at Annexure A6 issued by
Respondent-1 transferring him back to Aldur from Chikmagalur. He claims
that the said order is arbitrary, discriminatory and void and is also
opposed to the Rules. But the learned Counsel for applicant has not cited any
incidence whatsoever which would show any discrimination or arbitrariness or
action against Rules by the Respondents.
Para-4.2 and 5.2 of the application make the narration appear as if
Respondent-1 had transferred him
from Chikmagalur to Aldur which he obeyed by joining at Aldur on 8.6.2010
whereafter he applied for coming back to
Chikmagalur and was brought back on 6.7.2010 only to be
suddenly reposted back to Aldur thus
making it appear to be arbitrary.
However, he has chosen not to reveal the full facts about the office memo for rotational transfer
which was declared as far back as
15.1.2010 and whereafter his
representations not to be disturbed from Chikmagalur were repeatedly rejected
by Respondent-4 (Refer representation of
the applicant dated 4.2.2010, 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010). Again at para-4.3 of he OA mentions that his
representation dated 4.9.2010 at Annexure A7 has not yet been replied thus
trying to create an impression of failure on behalf of the respondents. But here again, the applicant chooses not to
disclose the information that his earlier three representations have been
rejected. Had he mentioned this, he
would have truthfully acknowledged that there was no inaction on the part of respondents. The learned Counsel for applicant has drawn our attention to Annexure R3 wherein
sub-para-2 refers to the name of the
present applicant showing him as Postal Assistant, Aldur SO and directing that
the transfer order issued in his respect may be immediately revised as it is
violative of the principles of rotational transfer followed through out in the
Division. This has also been reiterated
at Annexure R4 which clearly states:
“Hence it is once again reiterated that no modifications of Rotational
Transfers be done without obtaining the prior approaval of this office”. It is issued by Respondent-4 and is clearly
with reference to the consideration shown by Respondent-1 to the applicant by
way of his order dated 6.7.2010.
However, combining the two, of the learned Counsel for applicant wanted
to believe that read together, these two
orders are unfair and contradicting to each other.

5. We
cannot agree with him. The learned
Counsel for respondents has pointed out that once the Head office at S.K.Region
had declared the rotational transfers in January, 2010 and directed it to be
applied all over the Region, it is in the interest of administrative discipline
that no deviations should be made, especially when the representation of the
applicant was rejected three times.
Moreover, he took objection that
the applicant has chosen not to reveal his knowledge of the rotational transfer
list issued in January, 2010 and the three instances of rejection of his
representations.

5. In
view of the above, we find no merit in the OA.
The grounds of his personal inconvenience are only for the department to
consider as every one working in the department would have some difficulties or
other to claim consideration from the seniors.
But the seniors have to weigh these considerations against the
administrative discipline and smooth working of the office. Clearly, this is an area where no judicial
interference is warranted. Hence we have
no hesitation in dismissing the case. We
also consider it fit to impose a token cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred
only) on the applicant for not revealing complete information in his OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

About Me

BIODATA http://leenameh.blogspot.in/2010/04/biodata.html
My website is
http://www.leenamehendale.com
My Geeta recital and nearly 250 edutainment films on energy conservation are available on CD. See all my blogs. They are being expanded with my 400+ articles and 20 books so far.
............मेरा हिन्दी लेखन http://leenamehendale.fatcow.com/articles.html